Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[LEFT]On the other hand, those who aren't winning in the current system -- those who are status inconsistent -- tend to think that the system is not fair, and that feeling of unfairness colors the way that they see plaintiffs and defendants in litigation. [/LEFT]
The implication for corporate defendants is clear from this chart, and a number of others showing the same pattern: All things being equal, you want are economically comfortable jurors, which doesn't necessarily mean well-off jurors, but should not include status inconsistent jurors.
Funny, I just served on a jury. I was one of 8 professionals on that jury (the other four were a mix of a stay at home mom, 1 high school graduate, and the other 2 I didn't know the status) - this was all found out during the jury picking.
Four were doctors, 2 were lawyers, 2 were Engineers (one of them was a Software engineer), 1 was an X-Ray technician.
so, my own experience (of the three times I"ve surved as a juror, and the 1 time I was a witness in a trial), blows the articles claims out of the water.
Funny, I just served on a jury. I was one of 8 professionals on that jury (the other four were a mix of a stay at home mom, 1 high school graduate, and the other 2 I didn't know the status) - this was all found out during the jury picking.
Four were doctors, 2 were lawyers, 2 were Engineers (one of them was a Software engineer), 1 was an X-Ray technician.
so, my own experience (of the three times I"ve surved as a juror, and the 1 time I was a witness in a trial), blows the articles claims out of the water.
No it doesn't. The article is aimed at corporate defendants in civil suits. It's not written so much for small business in civil suits - the principles may apply, but small business owners are unlikely to see the article. and it's not aimed at litigants in criminal cases.
The level of legal sophistication in high corporate circles is way above that of small business or individuals.
Even so, professionals are much more likely to wind up on juries than are burger flippers, as your experience shows, and as my experience in a jury pool also shows. The fact that four of your twelve jurors were NOT professionals probably reflects the reality that the litigants are able to boot only so many jurors without cause, so demographic reality dictates you're unlikely to fit 12 professionals on the same jury.
I just came off 4 months on a Grand Jury. I though that the overall quality of the jurors was very good. However, the kind of people who were excused tended to be the 'burger flippers' who could not afford to exchange a day's work for the $12/day you get for being on the jury. That left mostly professional people or retired people.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
I have served on 3 juries, and in two of the cases the other jurors were all well educated/employed. In the other case, a murder, after all of the defense dismissals were exhausted they ended up with a few less prosperous jurors,
but on the first day of the trial we were all dismissed as a plea bargain had been done.
[LEFT]On the other hand, those who aren't winning in the current system -- those who are status inconsistent -- tend to think that the system is not fair, and that feeling of unfairness colors the way that they see plaintiffs and defendants in litigation. [/LEFT]
The implication for corporate defendants is clear from this chart, and a number of others showing the same pattern: All things being equal, you want are economically comfortable jurors, which doesn't necessarily mean well-off jurors, but should not include status inconsistent jurors.
The article is about the author who feels like people are being legally dis-empowered because they fear for their jobs if they spend too much time away on jury duty. The article is also from over 2 years ago during the recession. No where is there any data that anyone else feels that way.
It references an article that people feared for how they are viewed, that their work is getting behind, and the low pay they get during jury duty. It's a fact of life that increased during a recession. That's it.
I just came off 4 months on a Grand Jury. I though that the overall quality of the jurors was very good. However, the kind of people who were excused tended to be the 'burger flippers' who could not afford to exchange a day's work for the $12/day you get for being on the jury. That left mostly professional people or retired people.
Yes, a lot of burger flippers are being excused on the basis of economic hardship. After reading the article cited I found a similar article (aimed at a similar audience) which noted that a lof of the 'status inconsistent' (underemployed, burger flippers, etc) get excused for hardship and that this is (for the product liability defendants addressed in the article) is a good thing, as excused jurors are jurors you no longer have to use a precious challenge on in order to kick off the jury.
So if I end up in another jury pool, I look forward to making a snappy retort during voir dire: "I'm a status inconsistent burger flipper, you don't want me on your jury."
I never made it past the questioning phase. When they hear of military and police and fire dept in my family I'm "excused".
Just blacklist me already so I don't keep getting called up to serve !
The article is about the author who feels like people are being legally dis-empowered because they fear for their jobs if they spend too much time away on jury duty. The article is also from over 2 years ago during the recession. No where is there any data that anyone else feels that way.
It references an article that people feared for how they are viewed, that their work is getting behind, and the low pay they get during jury duty. It's a fact of life that increased during a recession. That's it.
This is terrible fiction.
There's more of this out there, as I discovered last night.
Jurors who pose the highest risk jurors for the defense in products liability litigation exhibit attitudes and
personality traits that are litigation-tolerant,pro-“big” government (e.g., regulation),
and plaintiff
-
sympathetic. They may be somewhat anti-law and order (i.e., choose which rules and laws to obey). This type of juror has a strong belief in the responsibility of society to watch over itscitizens.These jurors feel that they can, or should be able to,place full trust in the manufacturer of a product
.
(snip)
Status inconsistent (overeducated and underemployed, not by choice)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
